constellation of wearable computing devices on a wooden table

Context: Sitting in the usual cafe-office, looking at the devices on the table and recalling a friend’s mention about new wallpaper on their mobiles…sharing wallpapers is such a social thing. If this were the “social computing” setup, I wonder what the “sharing wallpaper” moments would be?

In the rise of wearable devices, capability is often touted as being the prime factor for usage. But, that isn’t often the case. There are behaviors - sometimes new or novel - which endear themselves to the adoption and use of those devices which makes or breaks their use. Before Internet service was assumed as default, text/SMS was the revenue source. And behaviors built on top of SMS were key to this. Picture messaging, sharing files/ringtones, and group messaging stated as niche then became service elements themselves. Overtime, some of these went from add-on features to default - sometimes even being tuned into something proprietary so that a competitive advantage could be exploited. Not the only example worth noting, but a recent enough one to make this point.

When looking at the items had at the cafe that day, there was a similar “what would be the social construct that makes this stick” kind of feeling. It wouldn’t be the same thing it is/was with mobiles - sharing wallpapers, bumping devices to share contact info, etc. But perhaps it would be something similar but unique - may something sparked from a prompt: “create an avatar of the person in front of me and save them in my contacts along with the date and time we met.” Or, maybe it’s a “order me the same drink I had a week ago, and add that last week’s barista didn’t put enough foam in the drink.” Or maybe it’s not a prompt at all, it’s a gesture, specific to the person, but then invokes some kind of common ritual - raising one’s arm and tapping the top of the wrist twice shows a clock in the glasses along with the next appointment and time/distance to arrival, as an example.

Perhaps, this is a continuation of a previous topic

Why this would be a separate device/series of devices from productivity computing? Starting with an assumption that “working means large screens” and the input efficiencies of a laptop or tablet w/attached keyboard moves people into “this means I’m working” context. Social computing devices should invite a person to be more engaged within the world around them. The artifacts of computing which are useful (payments, camera, necessary notifications, etc) then deliberately layered behind primary context. In this wise, items like the Kindle or Daylight Computer DC1 begin to make a bit more sense for immersive moments. But need not to be carried when being immersed is desired.

In the past (two decades ago), there was a push against mobiles which did more than basic calls/texts because people already carried devices which did these things. There was no want/reason to merge this except for a limited few. Then, Steve Jobs’ excellent introduction of the iPhone challenged that assumption. The social computer and the productivity computer were blended well. It was clearer - when done well, the experiences allowed for an advancing of what was possible.

Now, we are on the other swing. People don’t so much want to have different/more devices, but they do want to have firmer boundaries between spaces. It is possible this could manifest in different devices for social moments. But, if it does, there’s probably also some behaviors which should be shaped differently as well.